3rd centrury Roman infantry tactics - Stephenson vs Cowan

[Anonymous]

In Ross Cowan's new book "Imperial Roman Legionary 161-284 A.D.", he asserts that Stephenson's view that the 3rd Century Roman infantryman had become primarily a spearman was "..nonsense". He maintains that the pilum, or some variation thereof, and "cut-and thrust" sword play were still the main tactic. He uses archeological evidence as his main argument, while Stephenson seems to use more contemporary written sources for his thesis. What divide to you forum members fall on? or a little of both?. It seems to me that both tactical approaches, dependent on the foe or situation, could be used in an era which demanded great flexilibity of Roam arms.<br>
<br>
Tom <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

"both tactical approaches dependent on the foe or situation, could be used in an era which demanded great flexilibity of Roman arms".<br>
<br>
I agree 100% with your statement. I think that both tactical approaches were used. Certainly roman arms were exposed to extremely varied enemies, but wasn't this always true of Roman history?<br>
<br>
Why then the slow evolution away from pilum-gladius-scutum-cohort-legion? My personal answer is that as large pitched battles became rare there was a dimishing need for the tactics that were useful in the set-battles so typical of wars of conquest of the earlier times. Indeed from Hadrian onwards Rome was on the defensive and set-battles were absent with exceptions that actually confirmed the rule: occasional Rome-Sassanian wars and civil wars.<br>
<br>
In addition I feel the enemies that Rome faced were not very different tactically in Augustus' time than in Marcus's time or Diocletian. Okay maybe the Sassanians got significantly better.The Sassanians could be dealt with diplomatically and when conflict did arise is was almost always due to roman agression.<br>
<br>
But the enemies in the latter northern wars were probably not very different than the earlier Gauls and maybe even earlier Germans. At best they had more roman-like equipment and maybe learned a few tricks. Unlike the Eastern frontier, the northern limes was somewhat unpredictable (difficult intelligence in an unstable area). Only occasionally did the "barbarians" mount large scale incursions and when they did they were rarely stupid enough to move in large groups and accept a pitched battle with the romans.<br>
<br>
The trend, at least in northern limes, was towards defensive small scale and low intensity warfare. But a trend was set and after a sufficiently long time interval things ended up significantly different. The 5000 man Legion was too big for typical threats so the approach to extract Vexillations from the big formations was the obvious transition and it worked for a considerable length of time. But after a sufficiently long time there was no need to insist on making and maintaining the large legions.<br>
<br>
Tactically the legion was good against massive gaul and german phalanxs that Ceasar fought against. In particular the pila barage and sword play so useful to break-up rigid enemy formations until they cracked. But I feel they probably less useful against small formations. Large formations have more inertia, staying power, indeed that is why they are big! But they are also fragile and may crack. The individual feels he depends so much on the formation that when it starts breaking he rightly feels has little chances of survival and will panic even without actually being in the front line. Instead in a small scale battle a person is less compromised and can run to fight another day. It is harder to destroy the enemy. Large scale set-battles are: "Let's settle this here and NOW". Instead from the point of view of "settling matters" small scale battles are more inconclusive.<br>
<br>
The pila barage and the short sword fighting became less and less useful against and enemy that did not want to "settle things here and NOW".<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 1/30/04 11:45 am<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Wars with the Persians were almost always due to Roman aggression?<br>
<br>
As far as the sources tell us, the war in Severus Alexander's time was due to Ardashir's wanting to reclaim the territory of the Achaemenids; the war in Gordian's time was also due to Persian aggression -- they took Hatra, raided Dura, etc before the Romans even officially declared war; the next two invasions of 252/253 and between 257-260 seem to have been due to Persian aggression as well. Only Carus' and Galerius' wars against the Persians, towards the end of the century, come to mind as ones that started due to Roman agression.<br>
<br>
Of course, that changes in the 4th century and beyond, but we're talking 3rd century here. <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

Was I talking about the third century? The third is when the changes in roman tactics were evident (even though there is room for much discussion).<br>
I tried to describe the changes as long term effects of a slow evolution. To be precise I explicitly placed started the trend towards irreversible changes in roman tactics earlier, in the second. I mentioned Hadrian. The use of vexillations started in the 2nd (maybe earlier?) under Marcus Aurelius. In those times Rome did most of the agression against Parthia. Sassania, the following century, was more agressive. That is true. I agree that the sentence I wrote - "Sassanians could be dealt with diplomatically and when conflict did arise is was almost always due to roman agression" - is certainly NOT applicable to the 3rd century. Sorry for the confusion. Let's get back to the topic.<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 1/30/04 11:45 am<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Tom suggests that “Stephenson seems to use more contemporary written sources for his thesisâ€Â

[Anonymous]

Duncan..concerning 4th century Roman tactics...if the Roman infantry of that period assumed an often primarily "defensive" posture in at least major "set piece" battles (MacDowall)..how would the traditional Roman approach work? MacDowall's work implies that the Roman's used a locked shields/spear "wall" over which the rear ranks rained various missile weapons prior to the two opposing formations meeting in sort of pushing scrum where both spears and swords would be used. BWT..your assessment of 3rd century tactics was excellent. It seems to me that the Roman army of that era was sufficiently flexible to adopt either "Hellenic" or the more traditional Roman approach dependent on the foe. Stephenson seems to imply that there was a great variety of shafted weapons available for variuos roles. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I often wonder why Ian concentrated on the spear tactics only in his book while he was aware of a lot of archaeological artifacts such as pilum and the Dura rectangle shield from the 3rd century. I think he just wanted to emphasise the changes that did take place throughout the 3rd century. I also think he was limited to the amount of space and number of illustrations for his book, otherwise he would have also discused more traditional methods with extra illustrations of pilum armed troops with either oval or rectangle shaped shields plus segmenta armour.<br>
<br>
I could be wrong, Ian could have been influenced by his other past hobby of late Roman and Saxon battle reenactment where there is a heavy emphasise of fighting in shield walls with long spears. Mind you, he was good and never showed any mercy even to prisoners as he gleamed with excitment as he role played their execution. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Tom: I'm not sure that I do see 4th (or indeed 3rd) century infantry assuming a defensive posture as a rule - certainly at Argentorate and Adrianople they attacked, and while it might have been less common in the East (if we do follow the line that any adoption of spears was connected with wariness about eastern cavalry) Ammianus does describe Julian's foot closing at speed with Persian cavalry. My impression is that Simon MacDowell clearly regards throwing weapons as the main spear type, and I'm not sure he sees anyone using specifically thrusting spears.<br>
<br>
If they _did_ need to be on the defensive, Roman infantry had managed that before without being re-armed with thrusting spears (though I suppose that might depend on whether you think the first four ranks of Arrian's ektaxis were armed with pilum or hasta....).<br>
<br>
Paul: Stephenson does mention, I'm fairly sure, that some infantry still used pila, but he never ventures into which ones - does he see a change at some point during the 3rd century, in different units, on different fronts, or just the troops being able to use both according to circumstances? He certainly gives the impression that he sees the thrusting-spear used in phalanx being the main technique. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Can this not be deducted from the equipment found from this period?<br>
<br>
I was told along time ago that it had to do with the shape of the spear head; long and thin can be used for throwing and thrusting, while short and wide is mainly designed for fencing and thrusting.<br>
<br>
Swords got longer (Sparthas come in all diferent sizes, some are very long while others are shorter)<br>
<br>
The main type of helmets which have been found are all of the deep bowled variety with large cheakpieces such as the Hedenheim, Niederbieber and Buch. These helmet types are defensive.<br>
<br>
The Dura oval shields are wider than earlier oval shields. They cover a larger area giving more defence.<br>
<br>
I believe that the Romans were adapting throughout the late 2nd century incorporating these changes in equipment and that traditional types of weapons and style of fighting still co-existed with spear tactics in the 3rd century. Even a defensive unit of spear armed men can act on the offensive when required. The user of the Dura rectangle shield would have been armed with a heavy throwing spear/pilum and a shorter spartha or semi spartha the size of a gladius. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I believe the traditional units and spear units probably existed side-by-side. The development of these new 'defensive' units were probably due to the initiative of unit commanders who saw the need for such a unit, not due to some Empire-wide imperial decree to switch to the spear. More than likely these commanders simply trained their units for either situation, thus probably there were no units devoted exclusively to the use of spears. Otherwise we'd probably hear more about them in the sources. A limited, more specialized use of the weapon was much more likely than a complete switch-over. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Didn't the Romans always use the spear for defensive operations? Initially they had the spear-armed velites. Once these disappeared the legionaries carried pila of two different sizes. Apparently the longer one could be used in a defensive formation. Caesar describes this tactic during the siege at Alesia and nothing indicates that it was new or innovative. Connolly seems to agree. The sword only seems to have been the preferred weapon when the legions were on the offensive. Is it possible that the longer pila evolved back into a typical thrusting spear during the 3rd century? <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

While Cowan villifies Stephenson for his theory of 'spear only' infantry, he does describe a move towards a supporting role for light infantry, and he recognises that light infantry as resembling the old velites. Vegetius, writing from the 4th century, describes a similar 'new' Roman infantry.<br>
<br>
So, while the classic legions had the pilum, would it not be more logical to assume that from the later 3rd century, Roman infantry was divided into a line using the spear, while supporting or supported by a line with veruta or somilar javelins? the development of plumbatae at precisely this moment would support such a development. Also, Roman infantry is depicted in art no longer with the pilum, but with heavier and longer lances.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Muzzaguchi]

Duncan,<br>
<br>
Sorry not to have seen this earlier. There is no collection of fragments of the Kestoi translated into English. The best 'bits' can be found in the Loeb of Aeneas Tacticus and D. I. Woolliscroft Roman Military Signalling has another fragment. The best text is Vellifrond (Paris, 1932) but that doesn't have all the text (the Wooliscroft passage for instance is only in a 1982 book, in German, on ancient technical knowledge). Sorry I don't have full references at the moment - I'm on hoilday till March 1. If you want the full refs let me know and I'll post them. I have been doing some work of Africanus recently and it seems (according to Vellifrond) that he was with Severus Alexander in the east and recorded some of what he saw.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
Murray <p>It is an unscrupulous intellect that does not pay Antiquity its due reverence - Erasmus of Rotterdam<br>
<br>
'Modern history, like a deaf man, answers questions no one asks' - Tolstoy War and Peace Ep. ii.1</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I'd be very much interested in seeing those fragments too, once you get a chance to look them up. My email is [email protected] if you'd be kind enough to send them along Thanks! <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

I have seen photos of pilum points and a few recontructions too. My naive impression is that they would be useful to kill or seriously wound only if thrown. They are stubby spikes and not sleek blades hence I don't think they could seriously wound if generically thrusted; it seems to me that a sufficiently powerful thrust to make a spike-head (not a blade) do any penetrating damage would require considerable body wind-up, unhindered motion and delivery, and very much concentration. UnLikely in a confusing infantry battle! A sharpe blade is better because it can do real damage even if the blow is delivered with short wind-up and/or not perfectly delivered, or even partially deflected. I really think pilum heads were intended for throwing. Any comments?<br>
<br>
P.S. A big punch in short room was mastered by Bruce Lee; he could deliver a knock-out blow with only 10 cm of moving room available. <p></p><i></i>